Outcome checks: deploy isnt done (deploy + 14 days)
A simple outcome check schedule (+24h, +7d, +14d) so your roadmap stops being a story.
If you don't do outcome checks, you don't have a roadmap. You have a story.
Shipping is a hypothesis. Checks are how you learn.
The boring schedule that works
deploy + 24h -> breakage check deploy + 7d -> behavior check deploy + 14d -> metric check
That's enough to stop the loop-reset problem.
What to check
+24h (Breakage)
- error rate
- support spikes
- performance regressions
- obvious funnel breaks
+7d (Behavior)
- did users do the new thing?
- did completion rate move?
- did drop-off move?
+14d (Metric)
- did the target metric move?
- did any counter-metric worsen? refunds, support volume, churn, performance
Outcome check plan template (copy/paste)
CHANGE: PRIMARY METRIC: TARGET: COUNTER METRICS: SEGMENTS: CHECKS:
- +24h:
- +7d:
- +14d: OWNER: ROLLBACK THRESHOLD:
Why this matters more now
AI makes changes cheap. So teams ship more. So it's easier to lose causality. Then the roadmap becomes random.
Checks are how you keep causality.
Where ContractSpec Studio fits
ContractSpec Studio treats outcome checks as a first-class deliverable, so "ship -> check -> learn" becomes default.
If you want examples:
- https://www.contractspec.studio/
If you want a filled example, here are sample outputs.
If you want a filled example, here are sample outputs.Related articles
Impact Report template: Breaks vs Must-change vs Risky
A practical Impact Report template to make blast radius explicit before you ship.
Change Card template: the smallest spec engineers trust
PRDs are too big. Tickets are too small. Use a Change Card: intent -> AC -> surfaces -> verification -> rollout.
Evidence-backed briefs: PRDs fail because theyre claims without citations
A brief you can defend: claim -> evidence -> pattern -> scoped change -> measurable acceptance criteria.